Baikunth Singh Vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. [2008] INSC 2165 (15 December 2008)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2035 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 282 of 2007) Baikunth Singh .....Appellant Versus
State of Bihar and Ors. ......Respondents
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J
1.
Leave
granted.
2.
Challenge
in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Patna
High Court quashing the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Jehanabad taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 406 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') andissuing summons against the
applicants-respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The High Court exercised power under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code'). The
High Court was of the view that the case might have been filed by the
complainant in order to pressurize the petitioners before the High Court not to
proceed with the case which was lodged under Section 304-B ,201/34 IPC r/w
Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Act against the complainant and others.
3.
Various
points were urged in support of the appeal. Primarily it was submitted that the
petition was disposed of without issuing notice to the complainant. It is
submitted that the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code was not
warranted on the facts of the case.
4.
Learned
counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 supported the order of the High Court.
Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the stand of the
appellant.
5.
It
is not in dispute that the present appellant was impleaded as a party in
Criminal Miscellaneous No.9428 of 2006 which was filed by respondents 2 and 3.
Strangely, without issuing any notice the petition was disposed of. 6. The High
Court has come to a conclusion which appears 2to have been more on presumptions
and surmises that the case might have been filed to pressurize the applicants
before the High Court. There was no material in this regard and in any event
the stage for deciding that question had not arisen.
6.
It
cannot be said to be a case where the complainant was not required to be heard.
It is more so because the proceedings were initiated on the basis of the
complaint filed by the appellant which was registered as Complaint Case No.272
of 2002.
7.
In
the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we
set aside the impugned order. We direct the parties to appear before the High
Court without any further notice on 21st January, 2009. The Chief Justice of
the High Court is requested to allot the matter to an appropriate Bench.
8.
The
appeal is accordingly disposed of.
............................................J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
...........................................J
Back
Pages: 1 2 3
